Ketil Froyn wrote:
> The reason that I have chosen clamscan rather than the clamdscan is
> that I prefer not to have services running if I don't have to, in case
> of memory leaks or hackability-issues or something like that. Are
> these arguments broken (since you say there's never a good reason t
Jason Haar wrote:
I really should just drop support for clamscan. There is *never* a good
reason to use it!!!
Figure out how to use clamd, and re-run Qmail-Scanner ./configure to
detect and use clamdscan instead of clamscan.
Also ensure you are running the current release of ClamAV, and also
c
At 01:08 PM 11/18/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:50 PM 11/18/2005, Jason Haar wrote:
I really should just drop support for clamscan. There is *never* a good
reason to use it!!!
huh? can you expand on that comment a little please?
unless what you mean is drop support for clamscan, as op
At 12:50 PM 11/18/2005, Jason Haar wrote:
I really should just drop support for clamscan. There is *never* a good
reason to use it!!!
huh? can you expand on that comment a little please?
Paul Theodoropoulos
http://www.anastrophe.com
http://www.energynucleus.com
http://www.smileglobal.com
http
Ketil Froyn wrote:
> $ ps aux | grep clam
> qscand 30862 40.5 2.1 24352 21868 ? R10:40 70:11
> /usr/bin/clamscan -r -m --unzip --unrar --unzoo --lha
> --disable-summary --max-recursion=10 --max-space=10
> /var/spool/qmailscan/tmp/serenity113230682749330813
I really should just dro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fee that, as a first measure, I would lower concurrencyincoming to the max
number of
parallel clam scans the machine will handle at reasonable loads
That won't help much, because clamscan runs after qmail-smtpd has died.
I might try to use clamd instead of clamscan
Ketil Froyn wrote:
Hi,
I looked in the archives and saw that Will Saxon reported an issue with
scans taking too long. I am administering a small site where I have
similar issues. My system:
AMD Athlon 64 3200+
1GB RAM
netqmail with realrcptto, syncdir, mfcheck, qregex patches
clamav 0.84-2.s
>> Hi,
>>
>> I looked in the archives and saw that Will Saxon reported an issue with
>> scans taking too long. I am administering a small site where I have
>> similar issues. My system:
>>
>>
>> Large mails apparently take a long time to finish scanning, and some
>> appear never to finish.
At 10:40 +0100 18-11-2005, Ketil Froyn wrote:
Hi,
I looked in the archives and saw that Will Saxon reported an issue
with scans taking too long. I am administering a small site where I
have similar issues. My system:
AMD Athlon 64 3200+
1GB RAM
netqmail with realrcptto, syncdir, mfcheck, qre
Hi,
I looked in the archives and saw that Will Saxon reported an issue with
scans taking too long. I am administering a small site where I have
similar issues. My system:
AMD Athlon 64 3200+
1GB RAM
netqmail with realrcptto, syncdir, mfcheck, qregex patches
clamav 0.84-2.sarge.6
qmail-scanner
Jason Haar wrote:
>There is code in Q-S that is meant to detect when the qmail-smtpd
>process that called it dies, maybe it isn't working. I'll take a look.
>
>
>
I can't replicate the problem. I just edited qmail-scanner-queue.pl and
put a "sleep 1200" just before clamdscan was called (thus em
Will Saxon wrote:
>I am wondering why we continue delivery after the sender has dropped
>the connection. It seems like we should not deliver the message,
>since the connection was dropped before we had time to say we
>received the message. Is this something that qmail-scanner should be
>involv
Hello,
I am using qmail-scanner v1.25 with qmail-1.03 and the v2316
SPAMCONTROL patch on FreeBSD 5.4. I have SpamAssassin 3.04 and clamav
0.87 configured in qmail-scanner-queue.pl. I actually have 2 machines
with this configuration set up as smart hosts for an exchange server.
These smart host
13 matches
Mail list logo
